Google has sharply criticized the US Department of Justice’s proposal to force the sale of its Chrome web browser as an “extreme” and legally unsound remedy in the ongoing antitrust case. In a recent court filing, Google argued that the DOJ’s demand is disproportionate to the specific anticompetitive conduct identified by the judge, which involved exclusive agreements with browser developers, device manufacturers, and telecom carriers, rather than the inherent development or distribution of Chrome itself.
Google contends that legal precedent discourages “extreme remedies” and mandates that remedies align with the nature of the violations. The company asserts that divesting Chrome wouldn’t address the core issue of restrictive contracts that limit consumer choice and stifle market competition. Instead, Google proposed an alternative solution that would permit competing browsers, such as Apple’s Safari, to freely negotiate agreements with any search engine they deem beneficial for their users. This proposal, according to Google, would retain revenue-sharing opportunities for various browsers while enabling multiple default search engine options across different platforms. Device manufacturers would also gain the flexibility to pre-install multiple search engines without mandatory inclusion of Chrome or Google Search alongside other Google applications.
The DOJ’s initial request, submitted jointly with a coalition of states, urged Judge Amit Mehta to mandate the Chrome divestiture along with other significant changes to Google’s business practices to foster greater competition in the online search market. Judge Mehta previously ruled that Google’s payments to Apple and other companies to secure default browser status were unlawful.
Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President for Regulatory Affairs, emphasized in a blog post that the company’s proposed remedy would address the specific anticompetitive conduct identified by the court without unduly penalizing innovation or investment in Chrome and other Google products. She argued that the DOJ had the opportunity to challenge Google’s investments in Chrome, AI development, web crawling techniques, or algorithm design if they were deemed anticompetitive, but chose not to. This, according to Mulholland, underscores the disconnect between the DOJ’s proposed remedy and the actual violations.
This filing marks Google’s first formal response since Judge Mehta’s ruling earlier this year that the company maintained an illegal monopoly in online search and advertising. Google intends to appeal the ruling, but must await the conclusion of the case before doing so. Judge Mehta has scheduled a hearing in April to deliberate on remedies to address the lack of competition in the markets dominated by Google, with a final decision expected by August 2025. A DOJ spokeswoman declined to comment on Google’s filing, referring instead to the agency’s previous submissions in the case.
The outcome of this legal battle holds significant implications for the future of the tech industry and the balance between innovation and competition. The judge’s ultimate decision will shape not only Google’s operations but also the broader landscape of online search and related markets. It remains to be seen whether the court will favor the DOJ’s drastic approach or Google’s alternative proposal, which seeks to address competition concerns without dismantling a core component of the company’s business.
